Download Characterizing the international carbon capture and storage community Jennie C. Stephens ,

Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Global Environmental Change
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha
Characterizing the international carbon capture and storage community
Jennie C. Stephens a,*, Anders Hansson b,c, Yue Liu a, Heleen de Coninck d, Shalini Vajjhala e
a
Environmental Science & Policy Program, International Development, Community and Environment (IDCE), Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01610, USA
Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research (CSPR), Linköping University, SE-601 74 Norrköping, Sweden
c
Department of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden
d
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Unit Policy Studies, Radarweg 60, 1043 NT Amsterdam, Netherlands
e
Resources for the Future (RFF), 1616 P Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 28 April 2010
Received in revised form 10 January 2011
Accepted 18 January 2011
Available online 18 February 2011
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a controversial climate change mitigation technology that has been
receiving increased public and private investment over the past decade in several countries. During this
time, a diverse international network of professionals focused on the advancement of CCS technology has
emerged. Within this international CCS community, a shared perception of the value of advancing CCS
technology is generally assumed, and this community has been influential in lobbying for increased
support for the development of CCS in many countries and at the international level. The phenomenon of
an apparently shared perspective within a specific community relates to Haas’ (1992a) description of the
evolution of an epistemic community, or a knowledge-based network of recognized experts who ‘‘not
only hold in common a set of principled and causal beliefs but also have shared notions of validity and a
shared policy enterprise’’. Understanding the extent to which a given community can be characterized as
an epistemic community can provide insights about the effectiveness of its policy intervention, its
association with the broader public, and the success of communicating the messages that it wants to
convey. The goal of this research is to begin to explore the nature of the CCS community; to provide a
preliminary characterization of the community, and to consider whether and in what ways the
community might be considered to be an epistemic community or a compilation of multiple different
epistemic communities. This characterization suggests that although the CCS community may be
influencing decision-makers and successfully garnering political support for advancing CCS technology,
a potential disconnect with the concerns of a broader public is deserving of more attention and social
science research.
ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS)
Climate mitigation
Climate policy
Public perception
Risk perceptions
Epistemic communities
1. Introduction
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an emerging climate
change mitigation technology that has been gaining importance in
both national and international policy agendas over the past
decade (Coninck, 2010; IEA, 2008; IPCC, 2005, 2007; Meadowcroft
and Langhelle, 2009). This attention has been associated with and
fueled by an increase in both public and private investment in CCS
(ACCSEPT, 2007; Climate Group et al., 2010; Global CCS Institute,
2009; Tjernshaugen, 2008; van Alphen et al., 2010) and an
associated gradual but rapid increase in the number of individuals
whose careers are focused on the advancement of this technology.1
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 508 793 8846; fax: +1 508 793 8820.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.C. Stephens), [email protected]
(A. Hansson), [email protected] (Y. Liu), [email protected] (H. de Coninck),
[email protected] (S. Vajjhala).
1
Exemplified by gradually increasing attendance numbers for the main
international conference on CCS, the GHGT, which increased from about 250 in
1994 to 1600 in 2010.
0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.008
Communication among these individuals has created a diverse
international network of professionals focused on the technology’s
advancement; in this paper, we refer to this network as the
international CCS community. This community includes scientific
and technical experts, as well as representatives from business,
government, academia and non-governmental organizations.
The growth of the international CCS community over the past
decade has been, at least in part, self-perpetuating, i.e., the
community has effectively advocated for increased investment in
CCS technology, which has resulted in growth in the number of
individuals working on advancing CCS. Even though both the
international CCS community and investment in CCS have
increased, public awareness about CCS remains low (Reiner,
2008; Reiner et al., 2006). With the growth of CCS initiatives,
however, controversy and public opposition to further advancement of CCS has become more visible (Van Noorden, 2010).
Public concern and opposition to CCS technology can be divided
into two categories related to different perceived risks at global and
local levels: (1) general opposition to the technology as an end-ofpipe, expensive climate mitigation option that is resource-intensive,
380
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
promotes the use of fossil fuels, competes with renewable energy
sources, and is technologically complex and environmentally risky
and (2) project-specific opposition among communities that are
confronted with planned projects and perceive local risks associated
with those projects (Bielicki and Stephens, 2008; Wilson et al., 2003).
The environmental community has been divided in their level of
support for this technology (Wong-Parodi et al., 2008). Skepticism
about the technology’s potential to facilitate a transition away from
fossil fuels is strong (Greenpeace International, 2008), but there are
also environmental organizations that are highly supportive or
accepting of CCS (e.g., World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Bellona, Natural
Resources Defense Council). Project-specific opposition can be seen
in various recent proposed CCS projects, such as Vattenfall’s
cancelled and postponed storage projects in Denmark and Germany
(NyTeknik, 2009) and the cancelled Barendrecht project in the
Netherlands (Feenstra et al., 2010; Van Noorden, 2010).
Given the potential for public opposition to influence the
advancement of this technology, how the CCS community
addresses concerns and critical perspectives impacts the extent
and pace of the technology’s development. Boundaries and
limitations in energy professionals’ capacity to consider different
energy technology scenarios have been previously explored by
several scholars, including the anthropologist Laura Nader. In the
1970s, Nader observed groups of energy technology experts and
identified within these groups standardized thinking about the
risks and potentials of specific energy technologies and a lack of
respect for a diversity of perceptions (Nader, 1981a). Nader
highlighted that the conclusions and decisions of experts often
conflict with those reached by the general public, thus enhancing
an apparent disconnect between those within and outside specific
communities of energy-technology professionals.
Historical examples of energy technology development, such as
nuclear energy, have shown that public resistance can have a major
influence on the deployment of a technology (Anshelm, 2000;
Kasperson et al., 2005; Lovins and Sheikh, 2008; Zimmerman,
1982). The history of nuclear power in the United States also
highlights the challenges associated with how the community of
professionals associated with a controversial technology is able to
integrate public perceptions of risk into their activities and
communicate with the public to address opposition (Gamson
and Modigliani, 1989; Kasperson et al., 2005; Nader, 1981a;
Ohnishi, 1998). More generally, the discrepancy between the
perceptions of energy technology experts and those of the general
public has been identified and written about (Nader, 1981b).
Continued advancement of CCS and the pace at which CCS
technology will evolve in the future are therefore dependent on
multiple characteristics of the CCS community, including the
community’s capacity to engage not only with policy makers but
also with public concerns and public opposition.
Previous energy technology studies have recognized that
experts tend to exhibit overconfidence about and a positive bias
towards the particular technology they are working on (Hultman
and Koomey, 2007). More generally, it is recognized that positive
biases and overconfidence are often perpetuated by communication within groups who tend to focus on factors promoting success
(Buehler et al., 2005), whereas pessimistic scenarios are often
downplayed (Newby-Clark et al., 2000).
This phenomenon of an apparently shared perspective within a
specific community relates to Haas’ (1992a) description of the
evolution of an epistemic community, or a knowledge-based
network of recognized experts who ‘‘not only hold in common a
set of principled and causal beliefs but also have shared notions of
validity and a shared policy enterprise’’. Understanding the extent
to which a given community can be characterized as an epistemic
community can provide insights about the effectiveness of its
policy intervention, its association with the broader public and
the success of communicating the messages that it wants to
convey.
The goal of the research presented in this paper is to begin to
explore the nature of the CCS community; to provide a preliminary
characterization of the community and to consider whether and in
what ways the community might be considered to be an epistemic
community or, potentially, a compilation of multiple different
epistemic communities. To achieve this goal, we first provide
background and context on the value of considering community
structure and function in relation to the notion of epistemic
communities. The national and institutional affiliations of individuals within the international CCS community are then characterized, and content analysis of various CCS community publications
is used to assess framing of risks related to CCS within the
community. This assessment, although preliminary in scope,
provides new perspectives and insights related to the characteristics of the international CCS community, and our final discussion
suggests interesting additional areas of related future social
science research.
2. Theoretical background on types of communities
With the increasing complexity of social and environmental
problems that require policy responses, the social dynamics
associated with organizing and presenting information to decision
makers have become a critical factor in how problems are
addressed (Keohane, 1989). Distinct communities of individuals
who work collectively to inform decision-makers have emerged in
various political arenas at both the international (Adler, 1992;
Haas, 1992a, 1992b) and national levels (Adler, 1992; Dotterweich,
2009). At the international level, these communities are often
involved in a process involving three steps: (1) framing the range of
political controversy surrounding an issue or defining the context,
(2) interpreting and defining state interests, and (3) setting
standards and developing regulations (Adler and Haas, 1992). Such
communities can take different shapes depending on their specific
circumstances and the problem to be addressed, and the nature
and characteristics of these communities can influence associated
policy and technology outcomes.
The theoretical frameworks of these different types of
communities include thought collectives (Fleck, 1979), advocacy
coalitions (Ellison and Newmark, 2010; Sabatier, 1988; Sabatier
and Jenkins-Smith, 1993), and epistemic communities (Antoniades, 2003; Haas, 1992a). Fleck’s (1979) framework and concepts
on ‘‘thought collectives’’ focus primarily on communities involved
in the production of knowledge and facts. An advocacy coalition is
a type of community that includes a variety of actors, including
journalists, governments, policy analysts and other stakeholders
with diverse social interests who are advocating for the same goal
(Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). According to Haas (1992a), an
epistemic community is ‘‘a network of professionals with
recognized expertise in a particular domain and an authoritative
claim to policy relevant knowledge within that domain or issuearea.’’
Of these frames, epistemic communities offer the most direct
and in-depth lens through which to view and examine the nature
of the international CCS community. The concept includes two
critically relevant components related to the CCS community:
experts/professionals and the policy-making context. Sabatier’s
(1988) concept of advocacy coalitions could also be applied to the
international CCS community, but the notion of a CCS advocacy
coalition is too broad and inclusive with respect to the professionals who are currently and consistently part of the international
CCS dialogue. The international CCS community can be defined in a
more limited way with respect to professionals involved in the
advancement of this specific technology. Similarly, Fleck’s (1979)
Table 1
Examples of other epistemic communities.
Description
Features
A network of professionals with
recognized expertise competence,
and knowledge within a particular
domain and an authoritative
claim to policy.
Group involved in IPCC, especially
Working Groups I and II. Many
members previously connected.
Shared set of normative
and principled beliefs.
Causal beliefs.
Shared notions
of validity.
Common policy enterprise.
Actions should be taken to
mitigate possible global
warming, despite the remaining
uncertainties. Mitigation should
take into account international
inequalities.
An informal association of scientists
and civilian strategists who, for
intellectual, ideological, and political
reasons, have adopted the arms
control approach.
Ecological epistemic
community (the
ozone negotiations)
(Haas, 1992b)
It was transnational, consisting of
officials of the UNEP, the U.S. EPA,
and the U.S. State Department’s
Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs
(OES), as well as atmospheric
scientists in the international
scientific community.
Based on shared epistemic criteria
about the causes of war, the effects
of technological change on the arms
race, and the need for nuclear
adversaries to cooperate; they were
in agreement about the short-term
advantages and necessity of arms
control.
They were sympathetic to the scientists’
common set of values, which stressed
preserving the quality of the environment
and accepted their causal analysis.
The acceptance of
various mechanisms
for testing beliefs
about global warming,
such as a number
type of models,
including General
Circulation Models.
Members of this
community knew
each other well. They
learned from one another
and together generated
the standards by which
they verified the validity
of their ideas.
The adherents shared
common validity tests
based on the scientific
method.
Information and knowledge about
climate change is worth acting on;
uncertainty is not an excuse for
inaction; north-south inequalities
need to be addressed in responding
to global warming; and the emissions
of CO2 should be strongly limited.
The U.S. nuclear arms
control epistemic
community
(Adler, 1992)
Scientific consensus
outlined in the IPCC report,
includes the conclusions
that emissions from human
activities, are substantially
increasing the atmosphere
concentrations of GHGs and
destabilizing the climate system.
They predicted that both the
national security of the United
States and the chances of avoiding
nuclear war would be enhanced if
the superpowers would collaborate
to stabilize the nuclear balance
through arms control.
Climate change epistemic
community
(Paterson, 1996)
An acceptance of the 1974
Rowland-Molina hypothesis
that the chlorine in CFC
emissions upsets the natural
ozone balance by reacting with
and breaking down ozone
molecules and, hence, depleting
the thin layer of stratospheric
ozone.
This helped generate awareness
about arms control that eventually
led to public support for it and
helped persuade Congress about
the value of specific arms control
agreement.
Their policy enterprise consisted
of preserving this ozone layer,
which prevents harmful ultraviolet
rays from reaching the earth.
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
Communities
Epistemic community
(Adler and Haas, 1992;
Haas, 1992a)
381
382
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
framework is well suited for the analyses of communities of
experts, but it does not explicitly integrate the potential policy
goals and broader social influences of a community, such as the
CCS community.
Haas (1992a) describes epistemic communities as knowledgebased networks of recognized experts who ‘‘not only hold in
common a set of principled and causal beliefs but also have shared
notions of validity and a shared policy enterprise’’. The four key
features of epistemic communities, as described by Haas (1992a),
are the following: (1) shared set of normative and principled
beliefs, (2) causal beliefs, (3) shared notions of validity, and (4)
common policy enterprise. With regard to the common policy
enterprise and a community’s actual influence on policy, the
nature and structure of the community can determine its impact
on the policy agenda (Haas, 1992a).
Antoniades expanded Haas’ characterization and conceptualized and defined epistemic communities as ‘‘thought communities
made up of socially recognized knowledge-based networks, the
members of which share a common understanding of a particular
problem/issue or a common worldview and seek to translate their
beliefs into dominant social discourse and social practice’’
(Antoniades, 2003). The community can focus on two kinds of
action: cognitive and practical. The former concentrates on the
(re)production of social reality or ‘‘truth’’, i.e., engaging in and
promoting a specific perspective. The latter is when group
members actively attempt to influence the policy agenda and
provide information and/or expertise to policymakers. This can
involve multiple kinds of activities, including organizing conferences, seminars, press conferences, public discussions, and lectures
and producing publications.
Toke (1999) has criticized Adlers’ and Haas’ (1992) positivist
interpretation and use of the concept of epistemic communities as
only emphasizing the community’s influence on policy outcomes,
hence neglecting other actors (e.g., interest groups and social
movements) who might be of importance. These non-epistemic
groups may have a significant influence not only on policy
processes but also on the participating actors. Furthermore, Toke
(1999) criticized Adler and Haas because of their implicit
assumption that epistemic communities (experts) are in a better
position than, for example, environmental groups, to judge
environmental policy because of their knowledge validity and
commitment to the ‘‘truth’’.
Farquharson (2003) and Toke (1999) both noted that Haas’
interpretation of the concept of epistemic community neglects the
relationship between experts and non-experts. The inter-relationship between epistemic communities and the public and the
dominant role attributed to experts within the epistemic
community seem to be limitations of Haas’ framework. The focus
remains primarily on interactions between the epistemic community and policy-makers. More recent studies on epistemic
communities, however, have explored connections and interactions with the public, though not in relation to environmental
issues (Dotterweich, 2009).
A common view within the research field related to epistemic
communities is that the aim of an epistemic community is to
construct the ‘‘truth’’, or at least knowledge that can be accepted as
the truth by policy makers. This ‘‘truth’’ is negotiated within the
community. Haas (1992a) claimed that the epistemic community
is a central actor in the social construction of knowledge. However,
the success of the epistemic community is not only dependent on
claims of truth, but also on the existence of successful alliances
with decision makers. In this process, there is the potential for an
epistemic community’s interpretation of facts and knowledge to
conform to the community’s values, norms and practices
(Dotterweich, 2009). This phenomenon could be referred to as
an ‘‘echo chamber’’ effect; i.e., the creation of a community within
which knowledge and truth claims tend to be re-arranged to fit the
preexisting conceptual schemes that already are dominant and
accepted by the community. The community’s norms and practices
both enable and delimit what is feasible and worth striving for
(Miller and Fox, 2001).
Previous research on epistemic communities has explored the
characteristics of epistemic communities related to several
different types of international problems, including climate change
(Paterson, 1996), nuclear arms control (Adler, 1992), and ozone
depletion (Haas, 1992b). Table 1 summarizes the characterization
of these communities with regard to the four key features of
different epistemic communities.
3. Methodology
This research builds on the theoretical framework of epistemic
communities to assess and explore the nature and characteristics
of the international CCS community. This initial assessment
includes two approaches: a descriptive analysis of the professionals involved in this community (national and sectoral
affiliation) and content analysis of various CCS community
publications, to assess the framing within the CCS community of
the role of CCS in climate change mitigation and of risks associated
with CCS.
3.1. Descriptive analysis of who is involved in the CCS community
The international CCS community represents a dynamic,
evolving network of individuals and organizations who interact
professionally across sectoral and national boundaries in the
advancement of CCS technology. In an attempt to characterize the
current community, we have reviewed the primary sectoral
affiliations (business, government, academic, or non-profit, nongovernmental organizations) and the nationality of two sub-sets of
individuals with direct involvement in this international network.
The first of these sub-sets of individuals includes all authors of
peer-reviewed journal articles published in the International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Technology from the journal’s
first issue in 2007 to December, 2010 (968 individuals). This
journal was established in recognition of the need within the CCS
community for a transdisciplinary publication outlet for the
diverse, yet focused research that was being conducted in the field
of greenhouse gas control. The second of these sub-sets includes all
presenters, co-authors, session chairs and conference committee
members at the two most recent International Greenhouse Gas
Control Technology Conferences in Washington DC in 2008 and in
Amsterdam in 2010. This series of international conferences has
been occurring every 2 years since 1992, and the numbers of
presenters and participants has increased at each conference. At
the 2008 conference, the list of presenting authors, co-authors,
session chairs, and conference committee members consisted of
901 individuals, and at the 2010 conference, 1077 individuals were
involved.
3.2. Content analysis of CCS community publications
A content analysis of three CCS community publications was
conducted to characterize how CCS is framed within the
international CCS community. The results of this analysis provide
information about the framing of CCS in terms of a climate change
mitigation option and the framing of risks associated with CCS. In
developing the coding protocol, an iterative, repetitive process of
testing the intercoder reliability of the researchers doing the
analysis was conducted. After the initial codebook was developed,
a set of publications was coded by two of the authors who then
reconciled their coding to assess intercoder reliability. To minimize
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
discrepancies, enhancements were made to the coding protocol
before the remainder of the publications were coded.
3.3. Publications assessed
Three different publications that reach a diverse portion of the
international CCS community were assessed: (1) Greenhouse Issues,
(2) The Carbon Capture Journal, and (3) The International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control Technology. Greenhouse Issues is a newsletter published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Greenhouse
Gas Research and Development (GHG R&D) program, a combined
industry and government implementation agency of the IEA. This
newsletter is a publically available online publication that has been
published in its current format since September, 2006. The
newsletter, which includes approximately 20 articles in each
issue and 3–4 issues per year, reports on details of the IEA’s GHG
program activities and incorporates news from its member
countries; it has a readership of over 7000. The Carbon Capture
Journal is another newsletter that has a more industry-oriented
audience. This newsletter is a publication of the UK-based Carbon
Capture Journal Ltd. produced by Digital Energy Journal, one of the
world’s leading information distribution sources related to
information technology and communications in the oil and gas
industry. The newsletter, which is publically available online, has
been published 6 times a year since 2007 and currently has over
6000 subscribers, is funded by individual and corporate annual
subscription fees, corporate sponsorship, and advertisements. The
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Technology is a CCS
community peer-reviewed journal that began in 2007. This journal
is also a publication of the IEAGHG R&D Program; despite its
academic orientation as a peer-reviewed publication, representatives from government and industry also publish papers in this
venue.
The two newsletters are available free of charge online to the
CCS community and beyond. The intended audience of both of
these newsletters is the international CCS community, broadly
defined; these newsletters provide project and event updates, and
the tone of these newsletters suggests that the editors assume that
383
the audience is already actively engaged or involved with CCS
development in some way. The peer-reviewed International Journal
of Greenhouse Gas Control Technology requires a subscription or an
institutional affiliation for access, and the content is indexed in
several international academic databases; the journal has a 5-year
impact factor of 3.654 (IJGGC, 2010). The articles in this journal
generally contain detailed research results related to multiple
components of CCS and other greenhouse gas-reducing technologies.
These particular publications were selected because the
collective audiences of these publications span a large and diverse
portion of the diversity of professionals within the international
CCS community, from industry to academics. Although content
analysis of these three publications does not represent a
comprehensive review of all publications within the CCS community, these publications represent a cross-section of the written
communication within the community.
3.3.1. Framing of CCS as a climate mitigation option
The first part of the content analysis assessed how the potential
of CCS to contribute to climate change mitigation was framed in
each article, in both the newsletters and the journal articles. Every
article was categorized into one of four categories: (a) CCS is a
necessary technology for climate mitigation; (b) CCS is one of many
technologies in the portfolio of options for climate change
mitigation, but not essential; (c) no context for the interpretation
of CCS’s role in climate change mitigation was provided; and (d)
CCS should not be considered as a climate mitigation technology.
Although the same coding scheme was used for both the
newsletters and the peer-reviewed journal articles, for the
newsletters, the full article was assessed but for the peer-reviewed
articles this characterization was based on reviewing only the
abstract, introduction and conclusion because the content of these
sections was sufficient to characterize the authors’ perspective on
the role of CCS. In addition to this framing related to climate change
mitigation options, each article was characterized as being either
primarily technical (reporting on specific technical details about
CCS technology), non-technical (broader non-technical issues,
Table 2
Characterization of five different types of risks mentioned in the articles. Each category is sub-divided into ‘‘risks to’’ the technology (risks that may slow down the
advancement of CCS) and ‘‘risks of’’ the technology (risks that may result if CCS is advanced).
Risk coding
Description
Risks to the advancement of CCS
Risk of the advancement of CCS
Technical risks (TR)
Potential problems associated
with technical aspects of CCS
technology.
CO2 leakage.
Political risks (PR)
Problems associated with the
politics or policy of CCS
technology.
Economic risks (ER)
Problems associated with the
cost of CCS technology.
Complexity of integrating capture, transport
and storage; challenge of characterizing
geological storage potential; selecting
appropriate storage sites.
Uncertainty of climate change policy; lack of
government support; lack of regulation for
CCS, including addressing storage site
long-term liability and jurisdiction.
High cost of building full-scale plants; energy
penalty associated with CO2 capture;
insufficient investment; uncertainty of
economic payback and government subsidies.
Social risks (SR)
Problems associated with public
perception and social concerns of
CCS technology.
Lack of public understanding and acceptance
of CCS technology; community opposition;
media and NGO criticism. Public concerns and
worries about the safety of CCS technology.
Environmental
risks (EnvR)
Problems associated with the
environment impacts of CCS
technology.
The adverse impacts on ecosystem and human
health resulting from CO2 leakage. Ground
water contamination; ground upheaval;
abrupt large-scale leakage; biodiversity
impacts.
Detract from political support for
renewable energy; could
perpetuate dependence of fossil
fuel; etc.
Rising electricity prices for
consumers; changing prices of
emissions rights; reduction of
financial investment in
renewable technologies.
Lack of public understanding and
acceptance of CCS technology;
community opposition; media
and NGO criticism. Public
concerns and worries about the
safety of CCS technology.
The adverse impacts on
ecosystem and human health
resulting from CO2 leakage.
Ground water contamination;
ground
upheaval; abrupt large-scale
leakage; biodiversity impacts.
384
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
including legal, regulatory, or public perception issues), or not at all
about CCS.
3.3.2. Framing of risks: ‘‘risks to’’ CCS and ‘‘risks of’’ CCS
An additional part of the content analysis involved coding for
the extent and types of CCS risks and the perspectives related to
them that were mentioned in the two newsletter-type publications. For this qualitative coding, risks are considered to be any
obstacles, barriers, problems, or challenges related to the
technology, or any negative impacts or implications of the
technology. An initial step characterized all risks of CCS as fitting
into one of five general types of risks: technical, political, economic,
social or environmental (Table 2). These categories of risk were
adapted from the SPEED (Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy
Deployment) framework developed to assess the complexity of
factors influencing deployment of emerging energy technologies
(Stephens et al., 2008). Additionally, all risks were characterized as
either being framed as ‘‘risks to’’ the technology or ‘‘risks of’’ the
technology (Table 2). A ‘‘risks to’’ the technology refers to risks that
are explicitly related to CCS progress; i.e., barriers or obstacles to
the timely, sound and efficient development of CCS. ‘‘Risks of’’ the
technology refer to risks that CCS may represent for society or
energy systems; hence, the latter risks are neither primarily
framed as limiting the progress of CCS nor evaluated in relation to
their influence on CCS (e.g., the risk that the deployment of CCS
delays the development of renewable energy sources). Within the
social and environmental risk categorization in Table 2, the ‘‘risks
to’’ and ‘‘risks of’’ are described as being the same; however, it
should be noted that the interpretation of the consequences of the
risks may differ depending on the reader’s perspective.
4. Results
4.1. Characterization of the international CCS community
[()TD$FIG]
The characterization of the sectoral and national distribution of
the international CCS community, as represented by those authors
contributing to The International Journal on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technology from 2007 through 2010 (Figs. 1a and 2a) and those
attending the 2008 and 2010 International Greenhouse Gas
Technology conferences (Figs. 1b, c and 2b, c) shows a distinct
sectoral diversity and national distribution. Of the 968 authors
who contributed to the peer-reviewed journal (authors who
published more than one article were only counted once),
approximately 50% are academics, 30% are government affiliated,
20% are associated with business, and 2% are NGO representatives
(Fig. 1a). When this distribution of authors is compared to the
sectoral distribution of individuals who were presenting, coauthoring a paper being presented, or organizing a session at the
GHGT-9 conference (Fig. 1b) and the most recent GHGT-10
conference (Fig. 1c), the conferences were characterized by a
higher percentage of business representatives, a lower percentage
of academics, and approximately the same percentage of government affiliates and NGO representatives. This sectoral difference
between those publishing in the peer-reviewed journal versus
those presenting or organizing at the international conference is
not surprising given that among these sectoral groups, academics
have the most explicit incentive and motivation to publish in a
peer-reviewed journal, whereas attending and presenting at a
conference would be expected to be more highly valued by
business representatives than publishing in a peer-reviewed
journal. Additionally, academic professionals’ participation in
these international conferences could also be restricted due to
more limited travel budgets compared to business representatives.
The overall distribution represented in Fig. 1 demonstrates the
diversity of individuals and types of organizations that make up
the international CCS community, highlights the fact that the
community is not dominated by one sector, and suggests that there
is regular interaction at conferences among individuals representing these various sectors.
The national affiliations of these sub-sets of individuals
provide additional information about the character of the
international CCS community (Fig. 2). Among those publishing
in the peer-reviewed journal (Fig. 2a), the countries with the
most contributing authors are closely matched with those
countries that have invested the most in CCS (Meadowcroft and
Langhelle, 2009; Tjernshaugen, 2008; van Alphen et al., 2010).
The United States clearly dominates, followed by Norway, Japan
and the Netherlands. The national affiliations of those involved
in the GHGT-9 conference and the most recent GHGT-10
conference (Fig. 2b and c) do not demonstrate the same
distribution as that of the authors contributing to the journal,
though the USA also dominates in this case. With regard to the
GHGT-9 conference, the US was the host country, so part of the
disproportionate US representation engaged in the conference
can be attributed to the ease of attending a conference in one’s
home country. The GHGT-10 conference also exhibited the
largest number of representatives coming from the US, but the
proportions of attendants from European countries increased
compared to GHGT-9, which was likely due, at least in part, to
the GHGT-10 meeting being located in the Netherlands. Fig. 2
provides additional support for the idea that the countries
investing the most in CCS are those that are most engaged in the
international CCS community.
Fig. 1. The sectoral distribution of (a) authors who have contributed to the International Journal on Greenhouse Gas Control Technology from 2007 to 2010 and (b) individuals
who were actively engaged in the International GHGT-9 conference in Washington DC in November 2008, and (c) individuals who were actively engaged in the GHGT-10
conference in Amsterdam, the Netherlands in September 2010.
[()TD$FIG]
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
385
Fig. 2. The national affiliation of (a) authors who have contributed to the International Journal on Greenhouse Gas Control Technology from 2007 to 2010, and (b) individuals
who were actively engaged in the International GHGT-9 conference in Washington DC in November 2008, and (c) individuals who were actively engaged in the GHGT-10
conference in Amsterdam, the Netherlands in September 2010.
4.2. Content analysis
4.2.1. Framing of CCS in climate mitigation
The results of our analysis assessing the framing of CCS related
to its potential to contribute to climate change mitigation in both
the newsletters (Fig. 3a) and the peer-reviewed articles (Fig. 3b)
demonstrate a positive perspective on the role of this technology.
In both types of publications, some articles explicitly characterized
CCS as a necessary technology for climate mitigation (almost 11%
of the newsletter articles and over 8% of articles in the peerreviewed journal). More than half of the newsletter articles did not
mention a context for the role of CCS in climate mitigation (these
articles included event announcements, job descriptions, and other
materials that would not include a characterization of the role of
CCS in climate mitigation). For the peer-reviewed journal articles,
42% of the total articles mentioned the role of CCS as one of many
technologies in the portfolio of options for climate change
mitigation. No articles in either the newsletters or the peerreviewed journal characterized CCS as a technology that should not
be considered as a climate mitigation option, revealing an
optimistic and non-critical perspective within the international
CCS community with regard to the role of CCS technology in
climate mitigation.
An analysis of the peer-reviewed articles published in the
Journal of International Greenhouse Gas Control Technology
showed that approximately 72% of the articles were purely
technical, focusing on technical details of CCS engineering; 18%
were non-technical, focusing on legal, regulatory or public
perception issues associated with CCS; and approximately 10%
of the articles were not at all about CCS, but were about other
greenhouse gas control technologies (Fig. 4). The fact that only 10%
of the articles published in this journal are not about CCS is a
confirming indicator that this publication is a critical CCS
community publication.
[()TD$FIG]
386
[()TD$FIG]
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
Fig. 5. Distribution of the number of different types of risks mentioned or discussed
in the newsletter-type publications from September 2006 to December 2009.
Fig. 3. The comparison of the role of CCS in climate mitigation between newsletters
and journals, and (a) the percentages of articles of five codings in newsletters 2007–
2009, and (b) the percentages of articles of five codings in journals 2007–2009.
4.2.2. Framing of CCS risks
Fig. 5 represents the distribution of the different types of risks
mentioned or discussed in the newsletter-type publications from
September, 2006 to December, 2009. Technical risks dominate, as
they are mentioned most frequently. Political risks are the next
most frequently mentioned type of risk, followed by economic
risks. Environmental and social risks are mentioned the least often.
Additional qualitative analysis to further understand the risks
discussed in these newsletters involved categorizing the risks as
either ‘‘risks of’’ CCS or ‘‘risks to’’ CCS (Table 2). Even though risks of
various kinds are acknowledged, or even addressed in specific
research projects the vast majority of the articles in the newsletters
are characterized by a sense of optimism. The typical framing of
CCS consists of briefly mentioning a number of risks to the
development of CCS. However, the risks are, in most cases,
described as being very likely to be manageable, at least if CCS
obtains sufficient governmental support and public acceptance,
i.e., the strictly techno-scientific risks will be solved if enough
resources
and support are received. Within many of the articles in
[()TD$FIG]
Fig. 4. The percentages of peer-reviewed articles published in the International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Technology that were technical, non-technical or
not about CCS in the years 2007–2009.
the newsletters, risks are framed most often as ‘‘risks to’’ the
development of CCS. Significantly fewer of the articles frame ‘‘risks
of’’ CCS, including mentioning potential negative impacts that the
advancement of CCS may have on development of other energy
technologies, on public safety, and on fossil-fuel dependence.
A significant share of the articles deal with risks associated with
transport, injection and storage safety and liability issues. Those
articles are, in most cases, framed clearly as ‘‘risks to’’ the
development of CCS and not as ‘‘risks of’’ CCS, because the risks are
primarily framed as impeding the development of CCS. In some
cases, it is difficult to dichotomize ‘‘risks to’’ and ‘‘risks of’’ CCS
development. Several articles describing storage projects aimed at
evaluating potential impacts on health, safety and the environment were included in this review. These articles describe both
risks to and risks of CCS. However, the consequences of leakages,
for example, are in most cases framed first as something that might
stop the development of CCS and are not framed as the
environmental impacts thereof. This perspective, which we labeled
as a causal belief, seems logical because the aim of the newsletters
is to provide information regarding CCS-related progress and
activities, and the mission of most members of the CCS community
is to work towards implementation of the technology. Furthermore, this framing seems to be consistent with the perspectives
represented in Fig. 3a, i.e., about 10% of the newsletter articles
describe CCS as a necessity for climate change mitigation. This
view leaves little room for considering not developing CCS. Hence,
the risks of CCS are justified and are first valued in relation to
whether they pose a risk to CCS or not. Therefore, in a context
where the decision seems to have already been made that a
particular technology should be developed, a common goal seems
to be accelerating its development as efficiently as possible
while simultaneously trying to minimize potential risks of the
technology.
Articles discussing or mentioning the climate change consequences of not developing CCS (risks to) outnumbered articles on
the consequences of developing CCS (risks of), which seems to
represent yet another of the causal beliefs within the community.
This quote from the Norwegian NGO Bellona illustrates the former
perspective: ‘‘We should engage in a dialogue to provide
information and awareness and promote enthusiasm for this very
important technology without which we will not reach our goal to
stay below two degrees temperature change’’ (CCJ, issue 8, p. 6).
A minority of articles did express critical concerns regarding
CCS, its specific components or its appropriateness in specific
geographical areas. For example, some geologists are not
convinced about supporting a specific storage project because it
may leak (GI, issue 85). Leakage is also discussed from an insurance
perspective in another article. This article concludes that no matter
the size of the insurance, it will not cover major leakages.
Aims at realizing CCS. For this, the
following is necessary: increased
political awareness of CCS; legal
framework: governments have been
working with industry, research and
some environmental NGOs on
establishing the legal framework
(e.g.: EC CCS directive); funding for
R&D and demonstrations: governments have launched different CCS
RD&D programs; structural incentive: common goal is carbon price,
e.g., through CDM.
More large CCS demonstration projects
would lead to decreasing costs for CCS
commercial-scale deployment; CCS
technology is one of the necessary options for
mitigating climate change and/or a transition
technology. Pilot plants are needed for
validation; current demonstrations (Sleipner
and others) are successful; experiences from
the development of other technologies can be
applied to CCS; more funding and public
support would lead to advancing CCS
development; shared list of major obstacles
to CCS deployment.
CCS should play an essential
role in curbing global carbon
dioxide emissions. CCS needs
to be advanced and implemented. More public knowledge and understanding of
climate change and its drivers
increases public acceptance of
CCS technology.
The group involved in the
development, enabling and
implementation of CCS
technology: the (early)
attendees of Greenhouse
Gas Technology conferences, IPCC Special Report
authors, authors of papers
in the International Journal
on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technology. It has many
members who have
been highly involved in
government
agencies,
NGOs, and academia.
International CCS
community
Climate change is caused by
humans, and carbon dioxide is
the main greenhouse gas (GHG).
The world’s continuous inevitable economic growth will result
in more consumption of fossil
fuels and increased GHG emissions; it is socially, politically
and economically undesirable
(and impossible) to drastically
limit fossil fuels. CCS is the only
mitigation option that can
reduce CO2 while continuing the
use of fossil fuels.
Common policy enterprise
Shared notions of validity
Causal beliefs
Shared set of normative
and principled beliefs
Description
Epistemic community
Consequently, risk management tools are assumed to only be able
to manage ‘‘low frequency potentially catastrophic losses’’ (GI,
issue 93, p. 7). Accordingly, there will always be a risk of CCS related
to geological storage, even though this is not a main issue
addressed in many articles. In this context, it is notable that one
article raises the issue that the data related to storage probably is
overly optimistic and is based on estimations that are too general
(CCJ, issue 7, p. 13). This optimism is represented by the following
quote from another article: ‘‘CCS safety risks are manageable.
Based on 5 years research it provides evidence that geological
storage works at scale now and is safe, permanent and costeffective’’ (CCJ, issue 11, 26).
As mentioned above, a widespread perspective is that the
multiple risks of CCS are manageable. The following discussion
represents some of the community’s shared notions of validity,
which are characterized by a strong belief in engineering
knowledge. This perspective can be illustrated by this quote from
a leader article: ‘‘The risks will be regulated properly. We can
manage the technical challenges, but do not know how to deal with
the public acceptance’’ (CCJ, issue 8, p. 4). In addition to statements
like this, it is sometimes mentioned that the promotion of CCS
could be enhanced with the help of environmental NGOs, given
that they generally have a better reputation among laymen than
the fossil fuel industry. However, a number of obstacles are also
highlighted in these reports. Under the heading ‘‘Winning the PR
battle of CCS’’ it is said that the industry should ‘‘convince hard line
activists that it is safe and will not cause undesirable side effects’’
(CCJ, issue 4, p. 8). The article continues by interconnecting
technical issues and acceptance. A common standpoint is that once
the technical issues are addressed and overcome there will be
‘‘legitimate questions of health and safety raised by environmental
and grassroots citizen activist groups, which could be blown up
considerably by the media. The debate over the viability of CCS
cannot be confined to the elites of academia, engineering, industry
and government/. . ./this is a battle for the hearts and minds of
society at large’’ (CCJ, issue 4, p. 8).
Despite the prevalent technically optimistic tone in these
articles, a few critical statements are included in approximately
one article per newsletter issue. Two of the critical articles
paraphrase the statements of environmental NGOs. For example,
the WWF is reported as stating that: ‘‘Rapid deployment of
demonstration plants is necessary to determine whether CCS is
practical for broad application, and if it doesn’t work we need to
know even sooner’’ (CCJ, issue 3, p. 15). Furthermore, Greenpeace’s
attendance at an IEA GHG meeting in the Netherlands was reported
in one article in which it was mentioned that this environmental
NGO was reluctant to support CCS given its links to fossil fuels and
the belief that CCS will negatively influence the development of
renewables (GI, issue 86). The latter concern is expressed very
seldom in the articles in these newsletters; in contrast, it is a major
concern among MP’s in the European Parliament and in the mass
media according to a survey (based on a relatively small sample)
conducted by Shackley et al. (2007). Some parliamentarians in
Europe appear to have adopted a somewhat critical view of CCS,
and academia does not appear to be adopting a critical response
but, rather, one that is more typical of the responses of energy
industry (Shackley et al., 2007).
Furthermore, a couple of authors comment on what they
assume to be the considerable risk of granting permits to power
plants today and the consequence that CCS retrofitting of plants
will be delayed or shelved later on (GI, issue 91). Another
perspective that is presented is to emphasize the risk of not
building capture-ready power plants (CCJ, issue 4, p. 10). However,
another article expresses similar concerns, as its authors quote a
survey study claiming that only 34% of their 1000 respondents
were confident that clean coal technology and CCS retrofitting will
Table 3
Characteristics of the international CCS communities.
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
387
388
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
mitigate emissions in the next 23 years at reasonable costs, and
36% believed that implementing CCS in new power plants would
have a timely positive effect, which is considerably lower than the
optimism regarding renewables (CCJ, issue 1, p. 14). A few authors
express concerns that CCS in CDM might have negative effects on
the global carbon market due to an increased supply of carbon
credits. However, they conclude that CCS in CDM may not have
significant ramifications for the global carbon market or other CDM
technologies (GI, issue 93, p. 13).
5. Epistemic community characteristics within the
international CCS community
The international CCS community is a diverse international
community that has been rapidly growing for the past 5 years. The
sectoral diversity among governments, business, academia and
some NGOs is strong, as is diversity in national representation
(Figs. 1 and 2). Although this diversity results in complexity in the
community which may detract from the characteristics of
epistemic communities, this diversity creates a stronger need
for the community to unify.
Despite the diversity within the community, the framing of CCS
in climate mitigation shows a shared notion of validity. None of the
articles about CCS frame it as a technology that should not be
considered as a climate mitigation option, and the framing of risks
tends to focus on risks that may prevent or slow down the
advancement of the technology, rather than risks associated with
the advancement of the technology. This risk framing supports and
reinforces the assessment that the international CCS community
has a shared notion of validity and principled and causal beliefs.
The degree to which individuals within the CCS community
actively support or advocate for CCS advancement varies greatly
based on our analysis of newsletters, ranging from pragmatism to
high levels of support; only a few actually mention opposition to
supporting CCS advancement. The community does exhibit an
overall sense of promoting the technology to enhance society’s
capacity to respond to climate change. Acknowledging this
generalization, we also recognize the distinct heterogeneity of
the CCS community and the prevalence of individuals and
organizations within the CCS community who are skeptical of
the utility of advancing the technology (Baker et al., 2009). For
example, Greenpeace International is an organization that has
been an active member of the international CCS community in
multiple ways, including participating in CCS workshops and
meetings and having representatives serving as authors on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report
on CCS (IPCC, 2005). At the same time, Greenpeace has been among
the most influential and outspoken critics of CCS (Greenpeace
International, 2008).
A summary of the most important characteristics of the CCS
community that relate to Haas’ definition of an epistemic
community is presented in Table 3. Within the CCS community,
shared causal beliefs include the view that CCS is technologically
feasible and can contribute to large-scale reductions in CO2
emissions from industrial sources to mitigate climate change.
Shared notions of validity have been derived from debating and
finding solutions to the five different types of risks associated
with CCS (Table 2). The results of the analysis assessing the
community’s framing of the role of CCS in climate change
mitigation indicate that a positive perspective on the potential
climate change mitigation contribution of CCS technology is
dominant. Based on their common beliefs, the international CCS
community has been influencing national and transnational CCS
policy (Table 3). Although it is large, diverse and international,
the CCS community clearly displays some characteristics of an
epistemic community, as it operates based on a consensual
knowledge base, shared notions of validity and a common policy
enterprise.
6. Discussion and conclusions
Sections 4 and 5 provided a preliminary characterization of the
international CCS community, suggesting that the community has
some characteristics of an epistemic community. In this section,
we expand on this previous description, making connections to
theoretical analyses and considering possible implications. Finally,
we make some suggestions for further research.
This preliminary characterization of the CCS community
suggests that the international CCS community could be considered to be a rather large epistemic community, but it could also be
considered as a compilation of multiple smaller epistemic
communities, each with more specific national or sectoral foci.
Arguably, the CCS community is somewhat different and more
diverse and complex than similar networks that have developed
around other more established technologies. We suggest this
because CCS is not a single new technology but a complex set of
technological components, many of which have been commercially deployed in a variety of industrial applications for many years.
CCS technology, therefore, depends on experts from a wider range
of disciplines than many other emerging technologies; i.e.,
electrical engineers, chemists, engineers, geologists, sociologists,
pipe-line experts, the oil-industry, coal industry, mining industry
and ‘‘water experts’’ have all been involved in the development of
CCS technology, but only for a relatively short period of time. This
diversity is apparent in previous research that has highlighted
institutional fragmentation and a lack of sound international
communication and coordination among CCS demonstration
projects (Coninck et al., 2009).
Regardless of the community’s heterogeneity, a shared
perception of the value of advancing CCS technology is generally
assumed among those within the community. The diversity of
professionals focused on the advancement of one specific
technology system can be considered related to the technological
complexity of CCS but can also be related to the high degree of
uncertainty associated with the potential integration of CCS into
existing energy infrastructure systems and scaling up. Haas
(1992a) suggests that uncertainty is one factor that creates a
circumstance for a network of experts to assemble and converge,
and high uncertainty with regard to CCS is a probable convening
influence.
The community seems to have a consistent and rather
homogenous policy message related to the need for government
support to advance the technology. In some contexts, the
community demonstrates effective coherent communication
about this policy message, which is reflected in some of the
literature analysis presented here. Consistent communication has
resulted in specific policy implications; for example in the EU, the
CCS community successfully lobbied for billions of Euros in
demonstration funding to be allocated to the Zero Emissions
Platform (ZEP). The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, a
ministerial-level organization focusing on the international
development of CCS, also represents an important sub-group
within the larger epistemic community that has both resulted from
and itself promoted an increased level of government support for
CCS technology advancement.
Our text analysis revealed a limited degree of negative critique
taking place within the international CCS community, though
there are some distinct and consistent mentions of risks. The
community is clearly aware of and acknowledging, discussing, and
trying to address risks. A critically important point, however, that
this analysis demonstrates is that within the epistemic community, risks are framed primarily as ‘‘risks to’’ the technology rather
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
than ‘‘risks of’’. The issue of whether or not CCS should be
developed is not the major subject for discussion within the
community, and ‘‘risks of’’ the technology are seldom explicitly
addressed. Similar to what (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001) and Haas
(1992a, 1992b) pointed out as being general attributes among
developers of technologies or epistemic communities, the CCS
community seems to promote narratives about what CCS is, how it
will contribute to society and what the major risks to the
technology are. The CCS community is a growing, diverse, global
network of professionals that is embedded within and inextricably
linked to the larger community committed to climate change
mitigation. Many community members’ views of CCS technology
are fundamentally based on shared beliefs and notions of validity,
or at least shared rhetoric, about three things: (1) climate change is
a serious threat based on human-induced greenhouse gas
emissions; (2) the continued use of coal in the electric power
sector is inevitable; and (3) a strong conviction that CCS
demonstration will advance the technology.
Technological advocacy is a necessary part of the innovation
process (Hansson and Bryngelsson, 2009; Hekkert et al., 2007), and
technological advocacy is the fundamental mission of several of
the organizations within the international CCS community (CSLF,
2010; Global CCS Institute, 2009). The international CCS community seems generally to have organizational affiliations that
promote CCS and have a positive bias towards CCS because of
personal efforts to develop CCS (Shackley et al., 2007).
One recognized challenge associated with epistemic communities in practice is that the focus on influencing policy at a macrolevel can result in a disconnect with general public concerns
(Dotterweich, 2009). Within the international CCS community,
there are multiple signals suggesting that there this is a disconnect
with public concerns (social risks) and negative critique; this
disconnect has also been principally neglected in Haas’ (1992a)
and Haas’ (1992b) research on epistemic communities. Exploring
and characterizing this disconnect and differences in risk perceptions, discourse, and priorities represent valuable areas of future
research. As public participation and acceptance are an increasingly important component of environmental decision-making,
broadly, and technology deployment, more specifically (Beierle
and Cayford, 2002), more attention and research into this
disconnect is warranted.
While the framing of risks within the international CCS
community emphasizes ‘‘risks to’’ the advancement of CCS more
than ‘‘risks of’’ the technology, public concerns about CCS tend to
focus more on ‘‘risks of’’ the advancement of the technology. Both
types of public concerns, i.e., global concerns associated with the
technology as a resource-intensive, fossil-fuel-promoting, renewable energy source-competing, technologically complex climate
mitigation option and more local project-specific concerns among
communities that are confronted with proposed projects can be
categorized as predominantly ‘‘risks of’’ the technology. To offer
further insight into why the risks mentioned within the CCS
community tend to focus on ‘‘risks to’’ the technology; although
outside the CCS community, the risks tend to focus on ‘‘risks of’’ the
technology, it is worth considering a fundamentally different set of
assumptions that influences the discourse within the community
versus that outside the community.
Although the present study is unable to confirm or deny
whether or not a bias of over-optimism exists within the CCS
community, previous research has empirically exemplified what
the results of technology over-optimism or of prohibitive
discourses might be (Malone et al., 2009; Stephens and Jiusto,
2010). A strong advocacy perspective may detract from the
community’s collective capacity to critically evaluate the risks and
potential negative implications of specific policies or decisions
associated with advancing the technology and may also reduce the
389
community’s effectiveness in responding to skeptical or critical
perspectives about CCS from outside the community (Coninck,
2010; Malone et al., 2009). Furthermore, over-optimism may result
in disappointment if expectations are not fulfilled or subsequent
inappropriate regulatory adjustments, amendments, or sub-optimal investments are made (Anshelm, 2000; Smil, 2000).
Strong internal advocacy within an epistemic community has
the potential to lead to divergence rather than convergence in
visions of the technology between the general public and the
community. As mentioned previously, epistemic communities
tend to re-arrange truth claims to fit pre-existing conceptualizations that already are dominant within the community (Dotterweich, 2009). Hence, engaging in negative critiques or obtaining
external perspectives becomes important because the public
clearly has concerns about the technology that may not be
aligning with those of CCS community. To gain or maintain trust,
the CCS community needs to be sensitive to a wide range of
concerns outside of the epistemic community. The importance of
this sensitivity to concerns outside of the community can be
illustrated by previous negotiations regarding the role of CCS in the
Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (Coninck,
2008). The international CCS community, which was strongly in
favor of integrating CCS into the CDM, focused on a few
surmountable and procedural barriers, whereas external communities that were opposed to this integration emphasized a range of
convictions that we consider being closely related to ‘‘risks of’’ CCS
(e.g., sustainable development aspects and whether developing
countries would benefit or be worse off).
We recognize that the international CCS community is a
heterogeneous and dynamic community, so many individuals
within the community are at different stages of development of
their ideas, and a broad spectrum of perspectives, disciplines, and
nationalities is represented. Nevertheless this analysis has begun
to explore and demonstrate some characteristics and trends
associated with this dynamic community, and this initial attempt
at characterizing the community suggests several areas of future
social research on CCS and other climate mitigating technologies. A
more in-depth comparison of the social networks associated with
various different critical climate-mitigating energy technologies
would be helpful to determine similarities and differences
between CCS, a fossil-fuel technology, and other technologies,
including renewables and nuclear energy.
Additionally, an investigation of the relationship between and a
comparative analysis of the discourse within the CCS community
and the general public would be valuable and could reveal insights
relevant to the advancement of various different types of
technologies with high perceived risks that are susceptible to
public opposition. An improved understanding of whether and to
what extent perspectives within the CCS community incorporate
and address broader public concerns about the technology would
be valuable. Additional interesting and valuable work could
explore the hypothesis that the international CCS community is
composed of professionals that share increasingly self-reinforcing
views on the technology, its importance, and its risks.
An additional suggested area of social science research involves
documenting and assessing how the CCS epistemic community has
influenced policy-makers. Exploring how policymakers perceive,
accept and understand the knowledge and perspectives that are
communicated to them from the epistemic community could
reveal insights about policy-makers’ capacity to critically assess
experts opinions.
In conclusion, this characterization suggests that although the
CCS community may be influencing decision-makers and successfully garnering political support for advancing CCS technology, the
potential disconnect with the concerns of a broader public is
deserving of more attention and social science research.
390
J.C. Stephens et al. / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 379–390
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Swedish MISTRA Foundation for Strategic
Environmental Research for supporting this international collaborative project and to the editors of this special addition, Karin
Bäckstrand, James Meadowcroft, and Michael Oppenheimer for
their feedback and suggestions that have greatly improved the
quality of this paper. The valuable comments and suggestions of
two anonymous reviewers are also greatly appreciated. Appreciation is also given to the other researchers involved in this MISTRA
CCS project who through several workshops have also contributed
to the development of this work. Anders Hansson also acknowledges funding from Mistra Clipore.
References
ACCSEPT, 2007. The ACCSEPT Project: Summary of the Main Findings and Key
Recommendations.
Adler, E., 1992. The emergence of cooperation: national epistemic communities and
the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control. International
Organization 46 (1), 101–145.
Adler, E., Haas, P.M., 1992. Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the
creation of a reflective research program. International Organization 46 (1),
367–390.
Anshelm, J., 2000. Between Salvation and Judgement Day – On the Nuclear Power’s
History of Ideas in Sweden 1945–1999 (our translation). In Swedish. Mellan
frälsning och domedag – om kärnkraftens politiska idéhistoria i Sverige 1945–
1999. Symposium, Eslöv.
Antoniades, A., 2003. Epistemic communities, epistemes and the construction of
world politics. Global Society 17 (1), 21–38.
Baker, E., Chon, H., Keisler, J., 2009. Carbon capture and storage: combining
economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy. Climatic
Change 96, 379–408.
Beierle, T.C., Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in
Environmental Decisions. RFF Press, Washington, DC.
Bielicki, J., Stephens, J.C., 2008. Public Perception of Carbon Capture and Storage
Technology Workshop Report. Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA.
Buehler, R., Messervey, D., Griffin, D., 2005. Collaborative planning and prediction:
Does group discussion affect optimistic biases in time estimation? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97, 47–63.
Climate Group, Ecofin, GCCSI, 2010. Carbon Capture and Storage: Mobilising Private
Sector
Finance.
http://new.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/CCSMobilising-Private-Sector-Finance-Report-20Sep2010_1_1.pdf.
Coninck, H.d., 2008. Trojan horse or horn of plenty? Reflections on allowing CCS in
the CDM. Energy Policy 36 (3), 929–936.
Coninck, H.d., 2010. Advocacy for carbon capture and storage could arouse distrust.
Nature 463 (7279), 293–1293.
Coninck, H.d., Stephens, J.C., Metz, B., 2009. Global learning on carbon capture and
storage: a call for strong international cooperation on CCS demonstration.
Energy Policy 37 (6), 2161–2165.
CSLF, 2010. Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, Technology Roadmap: A
Global Response to the Challenge of Climate Change. http://www.
cslforum.org/publications/documents/CSLF_Technology_Roadmap_2010.pdf.
Dotterweich, L.J., 2009. Who knows what? A study of the role of epistemic
communities in the making of the no child left behind act. Kent State University.
Ellison, B.A., Newmark, A.J., 2010. Building the reservoir to nowhere: the role of
agencies in advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal 38 (4), 653–678.
Feenstra, C.F.J., Mikunda, T., Brunsting, S., 2010. What happened in Barendrecht?
Case study on the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the
Netherlands, ECN and Global CCS Institute. http://admin.cottoncrc.org.au/files/
files/pybx.pdf.
Farquharson, K., 2003. Influencing Policy Transnationally: Pro-and Anti-Tobacco
Global Advocacy Networks Australian. Journal of Public Administration 62 (4),
80–92.
Fleck, 1979. The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Gamson, W.A., Modigliani, A., 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear
power: a constructionist approach. The American Journal of Sociology 95, 1–37.
Global CCS Institute, 2009. An Ideal Portfolio of CCS Projects and Rational for
Supporting Projects, LEK Consulting.
Greenpeace International, 2008. False Hope, Why Carbon Capture and Storage
Won’t Save the Climate, Amsterdam.
Haas, P.M., 1992a. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy
coordination. International Organization 46 (1), 1–35.
Haas, P.M., 1992b. Banning chlorofluorocarbons: epistemic community efforts to
protect stratospheric ozone. International Organization 46 (1), 187–224.
Hansson, A., Bryngelsson, M., 2009. Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and
storage—a framing of uncertainties and possibilities. Energy Policy 37 (6),
2273–2282.
Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S., Smits, R., 2007. Functions of
innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (4), 413–432.
Hultman, N.E., Koomey, J.G., 2007. The risk of surprise in energy technology costs.
Environmental Research Letters 2 .
IEA, 2008. CO2 Capture and Storage—A Key Carbon Abatement Option. International
Energy Agency, 266 pp.
IJGGC, 2010. The International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. http://
journals.elsevier.com/17505836/international-journal-of-greenhouse-gascontrol/ (2010-12-15).
IPCC, 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary
for Policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working
Group III.
IPCC, 2007. Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group III Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Perkins, B.J., Renn, O., White, A.L., 2005. Media risk
signals and the proposed yucca mountain nuclear waste repository, 1985–1989.
In: Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E. (Eds.), The Social Contours of Risk. Earthscan,
London.
Keohane, R.O., 1989. International Institutions and State Power. Westview Press,
Boulder, CO.
Lounsbury, M., Glynn, M.A., 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy,
and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal 22 (6/7),
545–564.
Lovins, A.B., Sheikh, I., 2008. The Nuclear Illusion. Ambio, Nov 08 preprint draft.
Malone, E.L., Dooley, J.J., Bradbury, J.A., 2009. Moving from misinformation derived
from public attitude surveys on carbon dioxide capture and storage towards
realistic stakeholder involvement. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control 4 (2), 419–425.
Meadowcroft, J., Langhelle, O. (Eds.), 2009. Caching the Carbon: The Politics and
Policy of Carbon Capture and Storage. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Miller, H.T., Fox, C.J., 2001. The epistemic community. Adminsitration and Society
32 (6), 668–685.
Nader, L., 1981a. Barriers to thinking new about energy. Physics Today 34 (9),
99–104.
Nader, L., 1981b. The politics of energy: toward a bottom-up approach. Radcliffe
Quarterly 67, 5–6.
Newby-Clark, I., Ross, M., Buehler, R., Koehler, D., Griffin, D., 2000. People focus on
optimistic scenarios and disregard pessimistic scenarios while predicting task
completion times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 6, 171–182.
NyTeknik, 2009. Protester stoppar danskt CO2-lager (Protests stop Danish CO2 storage) http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article583207.ece.
Ohnishi, T., 1998. Variation of public opinion regarding nuclear energy with the
change of nuclear information by the media. Journal of the Atomic Energy
Society of Japan 40 (7), 563–571.
Paterson, M., 1996. Global Warming and Global Politics. Routledge.
Reiner, D., 2008. A Looming Rhetorical Gap: A Survey of Public Communications
Activities for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Technologies. EPRG Working
Paper 0801, European Commission FP6 ACCSEPT Project, http://www.electricitypolicy.org.uk/pubs/wp/eprg0801.pdf.
Reiner, D.M., et al., 2006. American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in
national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. Environmental
Science & Technology 40 (7), 2093–2098.
Sabatier, P.A., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy
Coalition Approach. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Sabatier, P.A., 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role
of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 21 (2), 129–168.
Shackley, S., et al., 2007. Stakeholder perceptions of CO2 capture and storage in
Europe: results from a survey. Energy Policy 35 (10), 5091–5108.
Smil, V., 2000. Perils of long-range energy forecasting – reflections on looking far
ahead. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 65, 251–264.
Stephens, J.C., Jiusto, S., 2010. Assessing innovation in emerging energy technologies: socio-technical dynamics of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) in the USA. Energy Policy 38, 2020–2031.
Stephens, J.C., Wilson, E.J., Peterson, T.R., 2008. Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy
Deployment (SPEED): an integrated research framework analyzing energy
technology deployment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75,
1224–1246.
Tjernshaugen, A., 2008. Political commitment to CO2 capture and storage: evidence
from government RD&D budgets. Mitigation, Adaptation, Strategy Global
Change 13, 1–21.
Toke, D., 1999. Epistemic Communities and Environmental Groups. Politics 19 (2),
97–102.
van Alphen, K., Noothout, P.M., Hekkert, M.P., Turkenburg, W.C., 2010. Evaluating
the development of carbon capture and storage technologies in the United
States. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, 971–986.
Van Noorden, R., 2010. Buried trouble. Nature 463, 871–873.
Wilson, E.J., Johnson, T.L., Keith, D.W., 2003. Regulating the ultimate sink: managing
the risks of geologic CO2 storage. Environmental Science & Technology 37 (16),
3476–3483.
Wong-Parodi, G., Ray, I., Farrell, A.E., 2008. Environmental non-government organizations’ perceptions of geologic sequestration. Environmental Research Letters 3. (2).
Zimmerman, M.B., 1982. Learning effects and the commercialization of new energy
technologies: the case of nuclear power. The Bell Journal of Economics 13 (2),
297–310.